Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Sounds like Obama gave Putin..
Comments
-
You said that the Constitution trumps treaties, when the Constitution itself says different... that's my point
-
Um...no, it doesn't. That passage simply says if congress ratifies a treaty, (or passes any law) all a states have to follow it. States can't opt out. Congress can at anytime decide to end a treaty and a treaty cannot supersede any rights granted by the constitution.AZDuck said:You said that the Constitution trumps treaties, when the Constitution itself says different... that's my point
HTH. -
In the United States, a different principle is established. Our constitution declares a treaty to be the law of the land. It is, consequently, to be regarded in courts of justice as equivalent to an act of the legislature, whenever it operates of itself, without the aid of any legislative provision. But when the terms of the stipulation import a contract—when either of the parties engages to perform a particular act, the treaty addresses itself to the political, not the judicial department; and the legislature must execute the contract, before it can become a rule for the Court.
Foster v. Neilson, 27 U.S. (2 Pet.) 253, 314 (1829). See THE FEDERALIST No. 75 (J. Cooke ed. 1961), 504-505.
But more on point, do you think that Congress would repudiate the NATO treaty if Putin invaded Poland?
That's fucking nuts.
-
Foster v. Neilson, 27 U.S. (2 Pet.) 253, 314 (1829). See THE FEDERALIST No. 75 (J. Cooke ed. 1961), 504-505.AZDuck said:In the United States, a different principle is established. Our constitution declares a treaty to be the law of the land. It is, consequently, to be regarded in courts of justice as equivalent to an act of the legislature, whenever it operates of itself, without the aid of any legislative provision. But when the terms of the stipulation import a contract—when either of the parties engages to perform a particular act, the treaty addresses itself to the political, not the judicial department; and the legislature must execute the contract, before it can become a rule for the Court.
Yeah? I'm not sure what you're trying to say, but laws and treaties don't supercede the constitution. If a treaty was ratified that required every citizen to give up their guns, the Supreme Court would strike it down. The same process applies to treaties as laws. If next week congress decided they didn't want to be in NATO any longer, they could do that.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reid_v._Covert
